Author
Topic: UK Scouting 50 pence proposal for 1982 (Read 997 times)

Design 3 is sacrilegious, iconoclastic and all the rest, because the Scout symbol obscures the Union flag. Design two - well, I don't like designs without a legend - it makes coins look too medallic. So that just leaves number one, which is fine, IMO.

Maybe, maybe not. It would have been on the news and in the newspapers, and the public would have noticed it quickly enough.

Maybe, but I didn’t know what the ring of hands was about until I got into coin collecting in the early 90s. Prior to that I saw it as an alternative 50p design as it was so commonly encountered in change.

I think I agree with the Royal Mint’s decision in not going ahead with this. It wasn’t until the NHS 50p of 1998 that things changed. The NHS is for everyone in the UK. Scouting isn’t. By 2007, all and sundry was being commemorated on coins so it was more acceptable by then to have a coin for scouting. And equally appropriate that girl guiding was similarly represented a few years later.

Design 3 is sacrilegious, iconoclastic and all the rest, because the Scout symbol obscures the Union flag. Design two - well, I don't like designs without a legend - it makes coins look too medallic. So that just leaves number one, which is fine, IMO.

Design 2 is awful in my opinion. There’s no reason for the symbol to appear five times. Once or twice, perhaps, but no more than that.

I do not consider the event to be important enough. I do not know if I would have considered the 100th anniversary in 2007 to be important enough for a circulating commemorative coin either, after all it is only the scouting.

If I had to choose from these 3 I would have gone for A. Would have preferred only 1 fleur de lys though. C I consider to be creative, though unsuitable.

I do not consider the event to be important enough. I do not know if I would have considered the 100th anniversary in 2007 to be important enough for a circulating commemorative coin either, after all it is only the scouting.

Two reasons why I agree with you, as neither was in place in 2007:

From Wikipedia: “More recently, the Boy Scouts of America was the focus of criticism in the United States for not allowing the open participation of homosexuals until removing the prohibition in 2013.”

“In the United Kingdom, The Scout Association had been criticised for its insistence on the use of a religious promise, leading to the introduction of an alternative in January 2014 for those not wanting to mention a god in their promise. This change making the organisation entirely non-discriminatory on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality, and religion (or lack thereof).”

I said earlier that “all and sundry” was being commemorated by 2007. This isn’t actually the case. Prior to 2007, pretty much all of the 50p commemoratives were for events affecting everyone or at least 50% of the population (the arguable exceptions being the Victoria Cross and Four-minute mile). To me, the Scouting movement was an elitist organisation that openly excluded huge segments of the population. These may well have since been rectified, but it strongly influences my belief that a 1982 commemorative would not have been appropriate, with the 2007 marginally more so.

Since the European Communities 50p coin was already mentioned here, that could have been a model for a scouting coin - a fairly "subtle" design that does not explicitly say why the coin was issued but is still quite different from the regular piece. Neither A nor B nor C meet that criterion so to say.

Should a scouts commem have been issued then? Well, since the movement originated in the UK, it would have made sense. Maybe scouting does not affect or involve that many people, but it certainly became something international, almost global - and Baden Powell started it. However, the decision to not issue that coin was right in my opinion. My objections aside (mostly regarding the religious and military elements of scouting; in Germany the story is a little different), it was a good idea to wait until 2007. Partly because 100 is a "rounder" figure, but also because in this century the 50 pence designs are more occasion specific ...

As for commemorative 50 pence coins in general, the London Olympics brought a change, I think. While I liked and like the idea to show the variety of sports on so many coins, the can of worms that this series opened is pretty big. See Beatrix Potter. Fortunately the £2 issue program has so far not been infected by this; the Shakespeare trio was a tolerable exception.

Greedy! I merely wanted members' opinions on what was on offer: the unadopted designs as shown.

Quote

As for commemorative 50 pence coins in general, the London Olympics brought a change, I think. While I liked and like the idea to show the variety of sports on so many coins, the can of worms that this series opened is pretty big. See Beatrix Potter. Fortunately the £2 issue program has so far not been infected by this; the Shakespeare trio was a tolerable exception.

As for commemorative 50 pence coins in general, the London Olympics brought a change, I think. While I liked and like the idea to show the variety of sports on so many coins, the can of worms that this series opened is pretty big. See Beatrix Potter.

I agree with the cause and effect you mention but feel that the specific series that has/have resulted (e.g. Beatrix Potter) were not an inevitable consequence of that. In other words, I think that the Olympic series caused sudden "commemorative inflation" that the Royal Mint felt it had to maintain in some way, and that this was inevitable, but that the RM should have got hooked up on a rather tangential subject for commemoration should have been much more avoidable.

If the RM wanted to continue issuing multiple 50p coins per year because it was a commercial success, they could have chosen something equivalent to the US State Quarters, the Jersey Parishes £1 coins or the German Bundesländer €2 coins. By choosing counties, cities, heritage sites or whatever they would have had more subjects to go at, for a start (there are more counties - however you define them - in the UK than there are states in the US), and IMV such coins would have been of more relevance and interest to a wider spectrum of the public. It would also have avoided the question that is asked about the BP coins "Why BP and not <insert other children's author here>?"

Your reply makes good sense, FosseWay. Though whatever themes the Royal Mint chose, there would always be somebody who found fault with them, of course. You can't say the Beatrix Potter coins are not popular, though - I have never received a single one in change.

Your reply makes good sense, FosseWay. Though whatever themes the Royal Mint chose, there would always be somebody who found fault with them, of course. You can't say the Beatrix Potter coins are not popular, though - I have never received a single one in change.

To what extent is their popularity due to their subject matter and/or the artwork used to represent it, and to what extent is it due to "rarity"? Are people keeping them when they come across them, or even going out of their way to buy them, because they feel an affinity with the topic or because they think they can sell them at a profit later?

In the case of the Kew issue, I think the answer is probably overwhelmingly the latter. For the Beatrix Potter coins it won't be so overwhelming, but a good portion of the interest is due to "rarity" I think.

This means that any coin hyped as "rare", especially one easily identifiable by non-numismatically aware people, will generate a degree of interest regardless of what, if anything, it commemorates. If part of the RM's intention is to create such hype in order to increase sales in particular and interest in the coinage in general, it doesn't really matter what the theme is - a much larger series, like the Olympics or a hypothetical counties series, would simply produce more such results.

Yes, there does seem to be more of the "Is it valuable?" sentiment around these days. We saw this with the so called "Queen with necklace" 2 pound coin of 1997. In subsequent years, some people claimed that "a man in the pub gave me five pounds for it", and the 5 pounds quickly rose to 15 pounds then 50 pounds.